Catholic believe pope is infallible

[Katy-follower]

I have catholic friends who got saved and left the catholic church to serve the Lord

2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I agree. Most do leave, but then I think of that scripture that says "come out of her my people" which suggests that there are some believers who have yet to come out. Not sure why? Perhaps they are confused. If they got born again while in the catholic church itself then maybe they are somehow crediting that church with their salvation, and as a result will take time for them to leave, especially if they're not reading the scriptures either. But I see that scripture also refers to some protestants today who are mixing with Rome too.

I was chatting with a lady on here who used to be catholic. Her brother got saved after her, but will not leave that church. He's chosen to stay so he can witness to catholics there. I don't agree with that thinking because we're called to be separate and not have fellowship with darkness. Would it not be a better witness when they see him leave and he explains why?

 

[Katy-follower]

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Your understanding of the scripture is incorrect. Jesus clearly says He will build His church. Was Peter used of God to further the kingdom? Yes, but make no mistake Jesus is the builder and continues to build the church through the saving of lost souls.

Peter is not the stone or rock upon which the church is built. Such a stone would be a faulty foundation and could not resist the gates of hell.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Not to mention that Paul was appointed as apostle to the gentiles (uncircumcised) while Peter to the Jews. So no link there either, between Peter and the Roman church.


Galatians 2:6-8: "But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me (Paul), as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles)"

 

[Katy-follower]

Not to mention that Paul was appointed as apostle to the gentiles (uncircumcised) while Peter to the Jews. So no link there either, between Peter and the Roman church.


Galatians 2:6-8: "But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me (Paul), as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles)"

And to clarify to anyone that didn't get what I was saying... the catholic church is built upon the apostolic succession of Peter, as they believe he was their first pope. So they use this "apostolic succession" to prove the authority of the pope and to claim the catholic church as legitimate, and all based on this wrong interpretation of Matthew 16:18.

But many scriptures disagree with the catholic view, and as in my previous post the scriptures confirm that Peter was focused on the Jews, not the gentiles. Peter was not connected with the gentile catholic church. Peter was not their first pope. So their apostolic succession is a sham, sadly.

 

[Jackson123]

And to clarify to anyone that didn't get what I was saying... the catholic church is built upon the apostolic succession of Peter, as they believe he was their first pope. So they use this "apostolic succession" to prove the authority of the pope and to claim the catholic church as legitimate, and all based on this wrong interpretation of Matthew 16:18.

But many scriptures disagree with the catholic view, and as in my previous post the scriptures confirm that Peter was focused on the Jews, not the gentiles. Peter was not connected with the gentile catholic church. Peter was not their first pope. So their apostolic succession is a sham, sadly.

yep Peter is never reside I Rome eat all

Paul in about 61 come to Rome, and ask Jew ps there whether they know about Christian but they did not know

Catholic say Peter in Rome since 32 AD

If so why after 29 years Peter preaching there Jews did not know about Christian

if Peter there I believe Peter the first Christian who welcome Paul and lt Paul stay in his house.

in act when Paul come to a place where there is Christian, he always stay at their home.

act 28

21 Then they said to him, “We neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor have any of the brethren who came reported or spoken any evil of you. 22 But we desire to hear from you what you think; for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere.”
23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at hislodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved. 25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our[b] fathers, 26 saying,

 

[garee]

to know whether Peter is foundation of faith, we need to know what is the definition of faith

Hebrew 11

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Is Peter the substance of things hope for?

Is Peter the evidence of things not seen?

what we hope? To be with Jesus?

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

That exclusive faith in the verse you offered is the faith of God, the faith eternal Christ not seen, not the temporal Peter seen. We walk by the unseen eternal not that seen the temporal . Believing God is the eveidence of things not seeing

God is not a man as us (impossible) he remains without form ,without mother or father or end of Spirit life.

2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[notuptome]

The word Peter means rock. If Jesus had not meant Peter He would not have said his name and go on to say that "upon this rock I will build my church". It's in the bible and Jesus said it. If that verse was not meant to be clearly understood than it serves no purpose and should not be in the bible. You last sentence is incorrect but believe what you may.

Tradition is preventing you from seeing the word play at work here in the verse. Christ is not building His church on Peter. Jesus is the foundation upon which the church is built.

We do not have video of the event in view here but I just about see Jesus point to Peter and say thou art Peter but now pointing to Himself upon this Rock I will build My church. Jesus is distinguishing and clarifying the foundation of the Living Church which is His bride the church.

May the Lord guide your heart to the true understanding of this passage.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Jackson123]

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

That exclusive faith in the verse you offered is the faith of God, the faith eternal Christ not seen, not the temporal Peter seen. We walk by the unseen eternal not that seen the temporal . Believing God is the eveidence of things not seeing

God is not a man as us (impossible) he remains without form ,without mother or father or end of Spirit life.

2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

yep I agree, back to question if Peter is foundation of faith? Nothing in this definition indicate that Peter is foundation of faith

 

[Jackson123]

Tradition is preventing you from seeing the word play at work here in the verse. Christ is not building His church on Peter. Jesus is the foundation upon which the church is built.

We do not have video of the event in view here but I just about see Jesus point to Peter and say thou art Peter but now pointing to Himself upon this Rock I will build My church. Jesus is distinguishing and clarifying the foundation of the Living Church which is His bride the church.

May the Lord guide your heart to the true understanding of this passage.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Yep, the foundation of church as a building is a rock, but church as a teaching is the teaching of Jesus

ephesians 2

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 builton the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

it say here built on foundation of apostles and prophets

plurar

and where the teaching of apostles came from?

Jesus, apostles do not have authority to make they own teaching

so the foundation of the church is Jesus

 

[Magenta]

The word Peter means rock. If Jesus had not meant Peter He would not have said his name and go on to say that "upon this rock I will build my church". It's in the bible and Jesus said it. If that verse was not meant to be clearly understood than it serves no purpose and should not be in the bible. You last sentence is incorrect but believe what you may.

Hello Jerry Some things to consider: Peter as a masculine name is spelled one way in Greek (Petros) and the rock that is the foundation of the church is spelled a different way (petra), for it is a feminine word. Also, there are a multitude of other Scriptures that attest to the fact that there is only one Rock of salvation, and it is God, not a man that Jesus had just referred to as Satan.

Look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18: "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros)
and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..."

The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

• Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
• Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
• 1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
• 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we? https://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one
which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).

 

[FranC]

And to clarify to anyone that didn't get what I was saying... the catholic church is built upon the apostolic succession of Peter, as they believe he was their first pope. So they use this "apostolic succession" to prove the authority of the pope and to claim the catholic church as legitimate, and all based on this wrong interpretation of Matthew 16:18.

But many scriptures disagree with the catholic view, and as in my previous post the scriptures confirm that Peter was focused on the Jews, not the gentiles. Peter was not connected with the gentile catholic church. Peter was not their first pope. So their apostolic succession is a sham, sadly.

Peter was the first Pope in a manner of speaking I'm not going to get into that right now.


What I WOULD like to know from you is this...

If Jesus gave the Keys to Peter,
And Peter was an Apostle
And he taught Others
Who taught Others
and we get to today

How is that NOT Apostolic succession?

WHEN did the succession end?

 

[FranC]

Petra is feminine. The BIG ROCK. Must refer to Jesus?

So Jesus was a female??

 

[FranC]

Tradition is preventing you from seeing the word play at work here in the verse. Christ is not building His church on Peter. Jesus is the foundation upon which the church is built.

We do not have video of the event in view here but I just about see Jesus point to Peter and say thou art Peter but now pointing to Himself upon this Rock I will build My church. Jesus is distinguishing and clarifying the foundation of the Living Church which is His bride the church.

May the Lord guide your heart to the true understanding of this passage.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Why would Jesus point to Peter and say YOU ARE THE LITTLE ROCK

and then point to Himself and say AND I AM THE BIG ROCK...

Maybe to make Peter feel badly?
Did Jesus go around undermining persons?

I DON'T THINK SO.

There must have been another reason why Jesus had this conversation with Peter.

Greater minds than yours or mine have pondered this, but, some here probably do not even read what some post.

But, of course, I give you the right and freedom to believe what you will.

TO WHOM DID JESUS LEAVE AUTHORITY?

 

[FranC]

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one
which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).

OK.

JESUS is the FOUNDATION.

WHO builds on it?

Is there a head builder?
Does EVERYONE lead?

Has anyone here ever seen a company which is led by more than one person that in IN CHARGE?

 

[FranC]

The concept of original sin does not bother me, because Jesus never spoke about it. Also, I do not want to waste time watching man-made teachings about St Augustine and Original Sin.

Jesus and his followers(the apostles) never brought up "Original Sin" as an issue. If it was an issue, they would have urged people to cleanse themselves of the same. On the other hand, they did urge people to repent of their own willful sins. The message of John the Baptist and Jesus was for everyone to repent of THEIR sins, not of original sin due to Adam.

Since the apostles never spoke about any concept of original sin, they could not have baptized anyone (including infants) in connection with original sin. So for any church to baptize infants to cleanse them from original sin is erroneous.

You say that in the past, men did not understand that God is merciful and therefore he would not condemn an infant. Do they understand it now? Why then do churches still insist on infant baptism?

Please answer this question: What if someone was baptized as an infant, and later came to believe in Christ as a grown up? Is his baptism as an infant valid in the eyes of God?

Just saw this...

Original sin... What do you mean you never heard of it?
It's referring to the first sin, the DISOBEDIENCE to God practiced by Adam when he ate of the forbidden fruit.
They just gave it a name. I have a problem with it myself, but that's the reason.

Did I say "they" did not think God was merciful in the past?

The infant baptism is valid in the eyes of God because baptism in and of itself, whether it be right or wrong, does cause a change in the soul of the person.

IF the baby grows up and does not ACCEPT his baptism and become born again -- he is not automatically saved.
This is taught by the Catholic Church.

Some churches are beginning to ask that if someone wants to belong to their chruch the new memeber MUST be baptized again. This is very wrong and denies the power of baptism.

 

[graceNpeace]

Petra is feminine. The BIG ROCK. Must refer to Jesus?

So Jesus was a female??

Seriously!
Go and learn some Greek grammar.
Every noun has a grammatical gender: masculine, feminine, or neuter.
It has nothing to do with the gender of the actual thing described.

For example in Greek the word for "disciple" is a first declension masculine noun.
But, this is a bit unusual since most first declension nouns are feminine.
All the declensions do is describe patterns for the ending of nouns (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and vocative, and these can be in the singular or the plural) so that they can be distinguished and understood.
The endings tell the reader what role the noun is playing in the sentence.

 

[FranC]

Seriously!
Go and learn some Greek grammar.
Every noun has a grammatical gender: masculine, feminine, or neuter.
It has nothing to do with the gender of the actual thing described.

For example in Greek the word for "disciple" is a first declension masculine noun.
But, this is a bit unusual since most first declension nouns are feminine.
All the declensions do is describe patterns for the ending of nouns (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and vocative, and these can be in the singular or the plural) so that they can be distinguished and understood.
The endings tell the reader what role the noun is playing in the sentence.

Gender.
Feminine
Masculine

Oh. You mean like in Italian and Spanish.
Thanks for advising me.

This is MY POINT.

This is not a GRAMMAR LESSON.

According to what Magenta wrote, I, stupid me, would think that Jesus is referring to himself and since PETRA means the FOUNDATON and the foundation is Jesus, then Jesus must have been a female.

Am I wrong?
Isn't this what MAGENTA said?

I might have misunderstood.
I speak so many languages I get mixed up sometimes...

 

[mj007]

Our own personal church is built upon the foundation laid out by Jesus in the Bible. Religion is built upon foundation laid out by men interpreting the foundations of Jesus in the Bible their own way, often making a temple out of it. Therefore there is only one Jesus, yet many divisions of denomination, there is only one God, yet many divisions of God in different religions.

So regardless of teacher, regardless of religion, your own personal church should be built on the right foundation, but men will try to tell you to built it on their foundation which is better than the other ones.

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one
which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).

OK.

JESUS is the FOUNDATION.

WHO builds on it?

Is there a head builder?
Does EVERYONE lead?

Has anyone here ever seen a company which is led by more than one person that in IN CHARGE?

 

[garee]

yep I agree, back to question if Peter is foundation of faith? Nothing in this definition indicate that Peter is foundation of faith

I as one of the many lively rocks that make up the spiritual house of God (all saints) know the voice of my Rock, Christ. Why would I follow the voice of another god called Peter or Abraham? According to Catholicism Peter is the foundation of faith. I am trusting Christ the Rock


For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.Is not this laid up in store with me, and sealed up among my treasures?To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted, eu 32:31

We know where the Catholic gods that they call patron saints and the scriptures call workers with familiar spirits are .(3500 and rising)

 

[garee]

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one
which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).

OK.

JESUS is the FOUNDATION.

WHO builds on it?

Is there a head builder?
Does EVERYONE lead?

Has anyone here ever seen a company which is led by more than one person that in IN CHARGE?

The one who created it causes the growth.. We can plant the incorruptible seed by which all men are born again from above and another can water it with the gospel the word of God but to accredit that work to any man shows someone is trying to usurp the authority of the Faithful Creator

1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth “any thing”, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

 

[garee]

Gender.
Feminine
Masculine

Oh. You mean like in Italian and Spanish.
Thanks for advising me.

This is MY POINT.

This is not a GRAMMAR LESSON.

According to what Magenta wrote, I, stupid me, would think that Jesus is referring to himself and since PETRA means the FOUNDATON and the foundation is Jesus, then Jesus must have been a female.

Am I wrong?
Isn't this what MAGENTA said?

I might have misunderstood.
I speak so many languages I get mixed up sometimes...

Peter in the feminine use of the word is used to represent one of the many lively stones that does make up the bride of Church... the spiritual house coming down from heaven prepared as His bride. We therefore walk by faith not by sight. God is not a man as us. He is God with us (Emanuel)